| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2003 04:24:18 PM · #1 |
I took this picture of a waterfall yesterday using a neutral density filter. Does anyone else have some interesting water shots using one?
//www.pbase.com/image/16569228 |
|
|
|
05/11/2003 06:11:03 PM · #2 |
Not my photos, but there are a bunch of examples at Cascade Images. This guy specializes in waterfalls!!
Message edited by author 2003-05-11 18:11:20.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2003 07:05:56 PM · #3 |
My feeling is that if you need to use ND, it's probably too much light for a good photo.
here's one i shot last summer on the G2 without a tripod and no ND (around 1 second exposure):
Leaves at Sol Duc Falls
Madison Falls
Both are taken in the Olympic National Park area.
Message edited by author 2003-05-11 19:07:30.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2003 07:42:41 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by paganini:
My feeling is that if you need to use ND, it's probably too much light for a good photo. |
If you're shooting outside on a bright day and want to shoot with open apertures for shallow DOF, it's often necessary to use some sort of ND filter. I was trying to shoot some pictures at a running track today and I needed to stop down past f/5 before it would come down past the 1000th/sec limit on the F717. f/5 on my canera gives quite a large DOF even at short distances. A limitation of the prosumer, yes, but a good example of a situation where I'd normally use a polarizer as a ND filter (I didn't have it on me) or something even darker in order to get the control I needed. |
|
|
|
05/11/2003 07:48:39 PM · #5 |
Polarizer would be necessary in bright sunlight as the water will reflect a lot more than you bargan for :) It's better than to use ND. Polarizer typically reduces the exposure by 1 1/2 stops, so about the equivalent to a 0.3 to 0.6 ND filter.
But, i'd rather wait for a different time to shoot than during bright sunlight on a waterfall...
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by paganini:
My feeling is that if you need to use ND, it's probably too much light for a good photo. |
If you're shooting outside on a bright day and want to shoot with open apertures for shallow DOF, it's often necessary to use some sort of ND filter. I was trying to shoot some pictures at a running track today and I needed to stop down past f/5 before it would come down past the 1000th/sec limit on the F717. f/5 on my canera gives quite a large DOF even at short distances. A limitation of the prosumer, yes, but a good example of a situation where I'd normally use a polarizer as a ND filter (I didn't have it on me) or something even darker in order to get the control I needed. |
|
|
|
|
05/11/2003 09:18:04 PM · #6 |
Thanks Tony
I will have to try this again on an overcast day as I was only able to shoot at 1/15th of a second due to the bright morning sun. This you probably do not have to worry about to much in Washington state many months of the year. I had a great look at the olympics last year from Victoria. I was very impressed with Vancouver island, sorry that I did not make it to Washington though! |
|
|
|
05/11/2003 09:20:57 PM · #7 |
Thanks Kim
Really nice shots! |
|
|
|
05/11/2003 10:28:44 PM · #8 |
Neutral density filters are handy in other situations as well...
While it is true that polarizers and other filters reduce the light adequately for the effect you want, it may not be enough, even if the lighting is good.
I wish I had the pic online, but I took a waterfall pic with a polarizer and NDx8 filter in place, reducing my exposure to ~ 3-4 seconds. Water comes out even more blurred than the example in the thread, and takes on a very smooth and silky appearance. It is quite a neat effect! :)
With a very string NDx8 filter, you can wipe moving objects right out of the picture. I saw this done in a magazine...a photographer wanted a shot of a chapel but too many people moving around...he used a strong ND filter and the scene was beautiful...an empty plaza and cathedral in broad daylight, when in reality, people were swarming all over the place... or you can use it to do a nice picture of a "deserted" highway when in reality cars are speedingby.... Don't think the long exposure would work well on a digital camera though, perhaps for cars but not for moving people...
Lastly, if you're shooting with high speed film, and happen to want a shot outside w/o having to reload the camera, a neutral density filter can give the extra edge you need to give the film the proper exposure...
They are certainly not the most handy filters to have, and I think its a bit down on the list of useful filters to carry with you, but they have their applications... I always have try a shot with it on if I'm near a waterfall... |
|
|
|
05/11/2003 11:07:55 PM · #9 |
I have been shooting waterfalls for several months now.(about 30) One of the first things that gave me problems was the shutterspeed. With my digital I could only get the shutter to 1/2 sec on a cloudy day. When at the same time I could get 10 sec with a film camera.(both w/polorizers) 1/2 sec will get an ok blurr but with the ND filter you have the choice for longer more silky look.
//www.pbase.com/image/16583238
//www.pbase.com/image/16415029
I almost always use a polorizer too. Check out the differance in these two.
//www.pbase.com/image/16583395 this one is a little bright I think because of the scanning, I bracket and have darker ones i assure you :)
//www.pbase.com/image/16583429
Also think about getting a split ND filter. I have no examples for this but I do have one that would be good with one. This could use a split ND filter right across the top of the falls.
//www.pbase.com/image/16413736
I could write a book on this(maybe because I have read so much) but I stop here.
Tim
|
|
|
|
05/11/2003 11:09:13 PM · #10 |
yes, there are other use for it as well, including removing people and cars from the Golden Gate bridge (20 minute exposures).... but in general if it's so BRIGHT, you need a polarizer to reduce the glare in the water, otherwise the image will look overexposed.
Originally posted by sylandrix:
Neutral density filters are handy in other situations as well...
While it is true that polarizers and other filters reduce the light adequately for the effect you want, it may not be enough, even if the lighting is good.
I wish I had the pic online, but I took a waterfall pic with a polarizer and NDx8 filter in place, reducing my exposure to ~ 3-4 seconds. Water comes out even more blurred than the example in the thread, and takes on a very smooth and silky appearance. It is quite a neat effect! :)
With a very string NDx8 filter, you can wipe moving objects right out of the picture. I saw this done in a magazine...a photographer wanted a shot of a chapel but too many people moving around...he used a strong ND filter and the scene was beautiful...an empty plaza and cathedral in broad daylight, when in reality, people were swarming all over the place... or you can use it to do a nice picture of a "deserted" highway when in reality cars are speedingby.... Don't think the long exposure would work well on a digital camera though, perhaps for cars but not for moving people...
Lastly, if you're shooting with high speed film, and happen to want a shot outside w/o having to reload the camera, a neutral density filter can give the extra edge you need to give the film the proper exposure...
They are certainly not the most handy filters to have, and I think its a bit down on the list of useful filters to carry with you, but they have their applications... I always have try a shot with it on if I'm near a waterfall... |
|
|
|
|
05/12/2003 02:29:09 AM · #11 |
| My brother and I did a spur-of-the-moment hike last weekend to a waterfall in the mountains. The sun was a nightmare, and I was really wishing I had a ND. I did use a polarizer, but I wasn't really happy with any of the shots. It's such a long hike back, however, that I couldn't really wait for better light. Sometimes you just have to deal with having too much light. |
|
|
|
05/12/2003 02:54:36 AM · #12 |
Tim- I love your waterfall shots. I just love to take waterfall and river shots and ND filters are a must. I have an ND6, but I've found out there is an ND9 and am wanting to get on and place both on top of each other. My ND6 is letting me get to about 1/2 sec to 1 sec at F-32 during the day and I want to be able to open the aperature a little more and still get the silky look. My last entry Thanksgiving Point Falls was taken with my ND Filter and at about 1 second. I think the waterfall looked good, however I know not to go into the postcard business(I'll have to get someone else to design them, I'll just take the photos) ;)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/25/2025 09:51:50 PM EDT.
